Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 1/2019

01-02-2019 | Original Paper

Mitigating hypothetical bias in willingness to pay studies: post-estimation uncertainty and anchoring on irrelevant information

Author: Ana Bobinac

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

One possible source of hypothetical bias in willingness to pay (WTP) estimates is response uncertainty, referring to subject’s uncertainty about the value of the good under assessment. It has been argued that uncertainty can be measured using the post-valuation ‘certainty question’ that asks: ‘How certain are you about your stated WTP?’ and marks the degree of certainty on a quantitative or a qualitative scale. Research has shown that the self-reported certainty evaluations can help mitigate hypothetical bias and obtain increasingly accurate WTP estimates. These study reports present a simple test of reliability of post-valuation certainty assessment and then looks at the empirical evidence for clues regarding the general usefulness of certainty adjustment in mitigating hypothetical bias in WTP studies. We find that the post-estimation uncertainty scores are malleable, i.e., significantly correlated with entirely irrelevant information. We conclude that more robust evidence could justify the routine inclusion of certainty evaluation in WTP studies although in the meantime the interpretation of certainty-adjusted WTP values should be approached cautiously.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
For instance, True WTP = Stated WTP / Bias, where Bias = f(uncertainty), e.g., 1.5 < Bias < 4.
 
2
Informed consent form was designed according to the official guidelines of the Medical faculty, University Rijeka. Ethics committee provided approval for study design.
 
3
These estimates were reasonable when compared to hourly wage rates in Croatia; they will be reported in another paper, as yet unpublished.
 
4
Since most chronic kidney disease patients’ stages III and IV will need dialysis in the future, they are familiar with specificities of dialysis treatment (including the treatment time required). However, familiarity with the good does not imply being familiar with paying for the good and payment mechanisms have been shown to affect WTP estimates as well.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Akter, S., Bennett, J., Akhter, S.: Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation. Ecol. Econ. 67(3), 345–351 (2008)CrossRef Akter, S., Bennett, J., Akhter, S.: Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation. Ecol. Econ. 67(3), 345–351 (2008)CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ariely, D., Prelec, D., Loewenstein, G.: “Coherent arbitrariness”: stable demand curves without stable preferences: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quat. J. Econ. 118(1), 73 (2003)CrossRef Ariely, D., Prelec, D., Loewenstein, G.: “Coherent arbitrariness”: stable demand curves without stable preferences: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quat. J. Econ. 118(1), 73 (2003)CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Arrow, K., Solow, R.: 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. 58 Federal Register (4602-14) Arrow, K., Solow, R.: 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. 58 Federal Register (4602-14)
4.
go back to reference Bedate, A.M., Herrero, L.C., Sanz, J.A.: Economic valuation of a contemporary art museum: correction of hypothetical bias using a certainty question. J. Cult. Econ. 33(3), 185–199 (2009)CrossRef Bedate, A.M., Herrero, L.C., Sanz, J.A.: Economic valuation of a contemporary art museum: correction of hypothetical bias using a certainty question. J. Cult. Econ. 33(3), 185–199 (2009)CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Bergman, O., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., Svensson, C.: Anchoring and cognitive ability. Econ. Lett. 107(1):66–8 (2010)CrossRef Bergman, O., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., Svensson, C.: Anchoring and cognitive ability. Econ. Lett. 107(1):66–8 (2010)CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Berrens, R.P., Jenkins-Smith, H., Bohara, A.K., Silva, C.L.: Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44(1), 144–168 (2002)CrossRef Berrens, R.P., Jenkins-Smith, H., Bohara, A.K., Silva, C.L.: Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44(1), 144–168 (2002)CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Blomquist, G.C., Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M.: Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements: comparisons between probably/definitely and a 10-point certainty scale. Environ. Resour. Econ. 43(4), 473–502 (2009)CrossRef Blomquist, G.C., Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M.: Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements: comparisons between probably/definitely and a 10-point certainty scale. Environ. Resour. Econ. 43(4), 473–502 (2009)CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G.C., Johannesson, M., Horn, N., Freeman, P.: Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Econ. J. 118(525), 114–137 (2008)CrossRef Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G.C., Johannesson, M., Horn, N., Freeman, P.: Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Econ. J. 118(525), 114–137 (2008)CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M., Blomquist, G.C., Liljas, B., O’Conor, R.M.: (1998). Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. South. Econ. J., 169–177 Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M., Blomquist, G.C., Liljas, B., O’Conor, R.M.: (1998). Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. South. Econ. J., 169–177
10.
go back to reference Bobinac, A., van Exel, J., Frans, F.H., Rutten, Werner, B.F., Brouwer: The value of a QALY: individual willingness to pay for health gains under risk. Pharmacoeconomics 32(1), 75–86 (2014)PubMedCrossRef Bobinac, A., van Exel, J., Frans, F.H., Rutten, Werner, B.F., Brouwer: The value of a QALY: individual willingness to pay for health gains under risk. Pharmacoeconomics 32(1), 75–86 (2014)PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Boyle, K.J., Desvousges, W.H., Johnsonm, F.R., Dunford, R.W., Hudson, S.: An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent Valuation Studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 27, 64–83 (1994)CrossRef Boyle, K.J., Desvousges, W.H., Johnsonm, F.R., Dunford, R.W., Hudson, S.: An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent Valuation Studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 27, 64–83 (1994)CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Boyle, K.J., Johnson, F.R., McCollum, D.W., Desvousges, W.H., Dunford, R.W., Hudson, S.P.: Valuing public goods: Discrete versus continuous contingent valuation responses. Land Econ 72(3), 267–286 (1993) Boyle, K.J., Johnson, F.R., McCollum, D.W., Desvousges, W.H., Dunford, R.W., Hudson, S.P.: Valuing public goods: Discrete versus continuous contingent valuation responses. Land Econ 72(3), 267–286 (1993)
13.
go back to reference Cameron, T., Englin, J.: Welfare effects of changes in environmental quality under individual uncertainty about use. The RAND J. Econ. 28, S45–S70 (1997)CrossRef Cameron, T., Englin, J.: Welfare effects of changes in environmental quality under individual uncertainty about use. The RAND J. Econ. 28, S45–S70 (1997)CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Carson, R.T., Nicholas, E., Flores, Norman, F., Meade: Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19.2, 173–210 (2001)CrossRef Carson, R.T., Nicholas, E., Flores, Norman, F., Meade: Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19.2, 173–210 (2001)CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C.: Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19(4), 383–402 (2001)CrossRef Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C.: Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19(4), 383–402 (2001)CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Champ, P.A., Moore, R., Bishop, R.C.: A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 38(2), 166 (2009)CrossRef Champ, P.A., Moore, R., Bishop, R.C.: A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 38(2), 166 (2009)CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C., McCollum, D.W.: (1997). Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 33(2) Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C., McCollum, D.W.: (1997). Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 33(2)
18.
go back to reference Diamond, P.A., Hausman, J.A.: On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values. In: Hausman JA (ed) Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment (Contributions to Economic Analysis, vol 220. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 3–38 (1993) Diamond, P.A., Hausman, J.A.: On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values. In: Hausman JA (ed) Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment (Contributions to Economic Analysis, vol 220. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 3–38 (1993)
19.
go back to reference Donaldson, C., Baker, R., Mason, H., Jones-Lee, M., Lancsar, E., Wildman, J., Bateman, I., Loomes, G., Robinson, A., Sugden, R., Pinto Prades, J.L., Ryan, M., Shackley, P., Smith, R.: The social value of a QALY: raising the bar or barring the raise? BMC Health Serv. Res. 11, 8 (2011)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Donaldson, C., Baker, R., Mason, H., Jones-Lee, M., Lancsar, E., Wildman, J., Bateman, I., Loomes, G., Robinson, A., Sugden, R., Pinto Prades, J.L., Ryan, M., Shackley, P., Smith, R.: The social value of a QALY: raising the bar or barring the raise? BMC Health Serv. Res. 11, 8 (2011)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Ethier, R.G., Poe, G.L., Schulze, W.D., Clark, J.: A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Econ. 76(1), 54–67 (2000)CrossRef Ethier, R.G., Poe, G.L., Schulze, W.D., Clark, J.: A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Econ. 76(1), 54–67 (2000)CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., Hayes, D.J., Kliebenstein, J.B.: CVM-X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 80(3), 455–465 (1998)CrossRef Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., Hayes, D.J., Kliebenstein, J.B.: CVM-X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 80(3), 455–465 (1998)CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hultkrantz, L., Lindberg, G., Andersson, C.: The value of improved road safety. J. Risk Uncertain. 32(2), 151–170 (2006)CrossRef Hultkrantz, L., Lindberg, G., Andersson, C.: The value of improved road safety. J. Risk Uncertain. 32(2), 151–170 (2006)CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Johannesson, M., Blomquist, G.C., Blumenschein, K., Johansson, P.O., Liljas, B., O’Conor, R.M.: Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses. J. Uncertain. 18(1), 21–32 (1999)CrossRef Johannesson, M., Blomquist, G.C., Blumenschein, K., Johansson, P.O., Liljas, B., O’Conor, R.M.: Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses. J. Uncertain. 18(1), 21–32 (1999)CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Johannesson, M., Meltzer, D.: Editorial: Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 7.1, 1–7 (1998)CrossRef Johannesson, M., Meltzer, D.: Editorial: Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 7.1, 1–7 (1998)CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Johnson, F.: Reed, et al.: Role of knowledge in assessing nonuse values for natural resource damages. Growth and Change 32(2001), 43–68 (2001)CrossRef Johnson, F.: Reed, et al.: Role of knowledge in assessing nonuse values for natural resource damages. Growth and Change 32(2001), 43–68 (2001)CrossRef
26.
go back to reference King, J.T., Tsevat, J., Lave, J.R., Roberts, M.S.: Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: implications for societal health care resource allocation. Med. Decis. Making 25(6), 667–677 (2005)PubMedCrossRef King, J.T., Tsevat, J., Lave, J.R., Roberts, M.S.: Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: implications for societal health care resource allocation. Med. Decis. Making 25(6), 667–677 (2005)PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Kosenius, A.-K.: Causes of response uncertainty and its implications for WTP estimation in choice experiments. Discuss. Papers 29 (2009) Kosenius, A.-K.: Causes of response uncertainty and its implications for WTP estimation in choice experiments. Discuss. Papers 29 (2009)
28.
go back to reference Li, C.Z., Mattsson, L.: Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 28(2), 256–269 (1995)CrossRef Li, C.Z., Mattsson, L.: Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 28(2), 256–269 (1995)CrossRef
29.
go back to reference List, J.A., Gallet, C.A.: What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ. Resour. Econ. 20(3), 241–254 (2001)CrossRef List, J.A., Gallet, C.A.: What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ. Resour. Econ. 20(3), 241–254 (2001)CrossRef
30.
go back to reference List, J.A., Shogren, J.F.: Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 37(2), 193–205 (1998)CrossRef List, J.A., Shogren, J.F.: Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 37(2), 193–205 (1998)CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Little, J., Berrens, R.: Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ. Bull. 3(6), 1–13 (2004) Little, J., Berrens, R.: Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ. Bull. 3(6), 1–13 (2004)
32.
go back to reference Loomis, J., Ekstrand, E.: Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl. Ecol. Econ. 27(1), 29–41 (1998)CrossRef Loomis, J., Ekstrand, E.: Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl. Ecol. Econ. 27(1), 29–41 (1998)CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Mansfield, C.: (1998). A consistent method for calibrating contingent value survey data. South. Econ. J., 665–681 Mansfield, C.: (1998). A consistent method for calibrating contingent value survey data. South. Econ. J., 665–681
34.
go back to reference Morrison, M., Brown, T.C.: Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ. Resour. Econ. 44(3), 307–326 (2009)CrossRef Morrison, M., Brown, T.C.: Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ. Resour. Econ. 44(3), 307–326 (2009)CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., Weatherhead, D.: A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 30(3), 313–325 (2005)CrossRef Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., Weatherhead, D.: A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 30(3), 313–325 (2005)CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Norwood, F.B.: Can calibration reconcile stated and observed preferences? J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 37(01), 237–248 (2005)CrossRef Norwood, F.B.: Can calibration reconcile stated and observed preferences? J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 37(01), 237–248 (2005)CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Norwood, F.B., Lusk, J.L., Boyer, T.: Forecasting hypothetical bias: a tale of two calibrations. In: Cherry, T.L., Kroll, S., Shogren, J.F. (eds.) Environmental economics, experimental methods. Routledge, New York (2008) Norwood, F.B., Lusk, J.L., Boyer, T.: Forecasting hypothetical bias: a tale of two calibrations. In: Cherry, T.L., Kroll, S., Shogren, J.F. (eds.) Environmental economics, experimental methods. Routledge, New York (2008)
38.
go back to reference Nunes, J.C., Boatwright, P.: Incidental prices and their effect on willingness to pay. J. Mark. Res. 41(4), 457–466 (2004)CrossRef Nunes, J.C., Boatwright, P.: Incidental prices and their effect on willingness to pay. J. Mark. Res. 41(4), 457–466 (2004)CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Opaluch, J.J., Segerson, K.: Rational roots of ‘irrational’ behavior: new theories of economic decision-making. Northeast. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 18(2), 81–95 (1989)CrossRef Opaluch, J.J., Segerson, K.: Rational roots of ‘irrational’ behavior: new theories of economic decision-making. Northeast. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 18(2), 81–95 (1989)CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Poe, G.L., Clark, J.E., Rondeau, D., Schulze, W.D.: Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation. Environ. Res. Econ. 23(1), 105–31 (2002)CrossRef Poe, G.L., Clark, J.E., Rondeau, D., Schulze, W.D.: Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation. Environ. Res. Econ. 23(1), 105–31 (2002)CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Robinson, A., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Bacon, P., Baker, R., Pennington, M., Donaldson, C.: Estimating a WTP-based value of a QALY: The ‘chained’approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 92, 92–104 (2013)PubMedCrossRef Robinson, A., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Bacon, P., Baker, R., Pennington, M., Donaldson, C.: Estimating a WTP-based value of a QALY: The ‘chained’approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 92, 92–104 (2013)PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Samnaliev, M., Stevens, T.H., More, T.: A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecol. Econ. 57(3), 507–519 (2006)CrossRef Samnaliev, M., Stevens, T.H., More, T.: A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecol. Econ. 57(3), 507–519 (2006)CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Shaikh, S.L., Sun, L., van Kooten, G.C.: Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: a comparison of empirical treatments. Ecol. Econ. 62(1), 115–125 (2007)CrossRef Shaikh, S.L., Sun, L., van Kooten, G.C.: Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: a comparison of empirical treatments. Ecol. Econ. 62(1), 115–125 (2007)CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Simonson, I., Drolet, A.: Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. J. Consum. Res. 31(3), 681–690 (2004)CrossRef Simonson, I., Drolet, A.: Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. J. Consum. Res. 31(3), 681–690 (2004)CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Svensson, M.: The value of a statistical life in Sweden: estimates from two studies using the “Certainty Approach” calibration. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41(3), 430–437 (2009)PubMedCrossRef Svensson, M.: The value of a statistical life in Sweden: estimates from two studies using the “Certainty Approach” calibration. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41(3), 430–437 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference van den Berg, B., Gafni, A., Portrait, F.: Attributing a monetary value to patients’ time: A contingent valuation approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 179, 182–190 (2017)PubMedCrossRef van den Berg, B., Gafni, A., Portrait, F.: Attributing a monetary value to patients’ time: A contingent valuation approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 179, 182–190 (2017)PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Vossler, C.A., Kerkvliet, J.: A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45(3), 631–649 (2003)CrossRef Vossler, C.A., Kerkvliet, J.: A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45(3), 631–649 (2003)CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Vossler, C.A., McKee, M.: Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms. Environ. Resour. Econ. 35(2), 137–168 (2006)CrossRef Vossler, C.A., McKee, M.: Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms. Environ. Resour. Econ. 35(2), 137–168 (2006)CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Vossler, C.A., Ethier, R.G., Poe, G.L., Welsh, M.P.: (2003). Payment certainty in discrete choice contingent valuation responses: results from a field validity test. South. Econ. J., 886–902 Vossler, C.A., Ethier, R.G., Poe, G.L., Welsh, M.P.: (2003). Payment certainty in discrete choice contingent valuation responses: results from a field validity test. South. Econ. J., 886–902
50.
go back to reference Whitehead, J.C.: Willingness to pay for quality improvements: comparative statics and theoretical interpretations of contingent valuation results. Land. Econ. 71, 207–215 (1995)CrossRef Whitehead, J.C.: Willingness to pay for quality improvements: comparative statics and theoretical interpretations of contingent valuation results. Land. Econ. 71, 207–215 (1995)CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Whynes, D.K., Frew, E., Wolstenholme, J.L.: A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. J. Health Econ. 22(4), 555–574 (2003)PubMedCrossRef Whynes, D.K., Frew, E., Wolstenholme, J.L.: A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. J. Health Econ. 22(4), 555–574 (2003)PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Mitigating hypothetical bias in willingness to pay studies: post-estimation uncertainty and anchoring on irrelevant information
Author
Ana Bobinac
Publication date
01-02-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-0983-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

The European Journal of Health Economics 1/2019 Go to the issue